VOEGELI v. PHELAN, 1:24-cv-01236

Nicholas Voegeli, a retired U.S. Navy Reserve officer, rescued a student from drowning in 1992 and sought military recognition for the act decades later.
A nomination for the Navy and Marine Corps Medal (Navy Medal) requires at least two eyewitness statements, which were reportedly included in his original Coast Guard nomination but can no longer be located.
Voegeli's attempts to obtain recognition included contacting the Coast Guard, a U.S. Senator, and the Navy, but his submissions were found lacking the required proof.
He applied to the Board for Correction of Naval Records to have his record amended to reflect compliance with award criteria, relying on affidavits that the statements once existed.
The Board denied his request, citing the lack of documentary evidence or the actual eyewitness statements, and Voegeli then filed suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), claiming the Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious.
Both parties moved for summary judgment; the court ruled for the Secretary of the Navy.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Is the Board’s refusal to amend the record justiciable?	Correction of the record is reviewable under the APA	Decisions about award are discretionary, not reviewable	Review of the Board’s reasoning under the APA is justiciable; court can review Board’s decision-making process
Was the Board’s denial arbitrary/capricious due to missing documentation?	Board denied relief solely for lack of eyewitness statements, the very error to be corrected	Board reasonably applied requirements; affidavits insufficient to substitute for missing statements	Denial was not arbitrary or capricious; Board reviewed all evidence and reasonably found it lacking
Should affidavits about prior existence of statements suffice?	Affidavit by commanding officer is direct evidence of their prior existence	Affidavit is not a substantive substitute for required, detailed eyewitness accounts	Board reasonably required actual or equivalent evidence, not just confirmation of prior existence
Did Board ignore material evidence submitted?	Board disregarded uncontested evidence and efforts to comply	Board considered all evidence, but found it insufficient	Board did not ignore evidence; concluded evidence did not sufficiently replace substantive eyewitness accounts

Haselwander v. McHugh, 774 F.3d 990 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (Board acts arbitrarily when it denies record correction solely because of missing documentation that the application seeks to fix, unless evidence of the substance of the missing records is provided)
Kreis v. Sec’y of the Air Force, 866 F.2d 1508 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (Judicial review of military correction board decisions is limited to whether the decision-making process was deficient)
Am. Bioscience, Inc. v. Thompson, 269 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (Summary judgment standard in APA cases involves reviewing the administrative record, not factfinding)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (Agency action must rationally connect facts found and choices made)